Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"

[Neven]

Hey, let's try to not let cynicism and black humour get the best of us too much. Things like how to 'get rid' of billions of people is just not gentleman-like. Don't make me too depressed. 

[Laurent]

If you meet someone that say there is no warming just show him the records !
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82918&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_title

[Laurent]

I received this piece of crap from a mailing list whose concern is about ecology (in french), about making some rocket stove more precisely ! There is a lot of people involved in the downsizing of the economy that believe in this !!!   
Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax
I don't have time to see it all but if you like this kind of bullshit...

[Anne]

Goodness! The Register is changing its tune. Almost snark-free, it has the story about the NEGIS sliding into the sea (the Kahn paper) without claiming that it's all made up by grant-sniffers. Its commenters haven't changed, though. With few honourable exceptions and boring predictability they still go on about Chicken-Licken and how the ice melts in their gin and tonic.

As for why they react like this to AGW, I have a hunch which I wouldn't dream of describing as a theory.

[JimD]

For those who still think that a great argument and appeal to logic and reason can convince deniers of the fact of AGW and the requirement to change away from BAU to solve it, here is proof why it cannot be done.

How politics makes us stupid

There’s a simple theory underlying much of American politics. It sits hopefully at the base of almost every speech, every op-ed, every article, and every panel discussion. It courses through the Constitution and is a constant in President Obama’s most stirring addresses. It’s what we might call the More Information Hypothesis: the belief that many of our most bitter political battles are mere misunderstandings. The cause of these misunderstandings? Too little information — be it about climate change, or taxes, or Iraq, or the budget deficit. If only the citizenry were more informed, the thinking goes, then there wouldn’t be all this fighting. It’s a seductive model. It suggests our fellow countrymen aren’t wrong so much as they’re misguided, or ignorant, or — most appealingly — misled by scoundrels from the other party. It holds that our debates are tractable and that the answers to our toughest problems aren’t very controversial at all...

But research shows this is not the way people think and make decisions.  Read on.

This kind of problem is used in social science experiments to test people’s abilities to slow down and consider the evidence arrayed before them. It forces subjects to suppress their impulse to go with what looks right and instead do the difficult mental work of figuring out what is right. In Kahan’s sample, most people failed. This was true for both liberals and conservatives. The exceptions, predictably, were the people who had shown themselves unusually good at math: they tended to get the problem right. These results support the Science Comprehension Thesis: the better subjects were at math, the more likely they were to stop, work through the evidence, and find the right answer.

But Kahan and his coauthors also drafted a politicized version of the problem. This version used the same numbers as the skin-cream question, but instead of being about skin creams, the narrative set-up focused on a proposal to ban people from carrying concealed handguns in public. The 2x2 box now compared crime data in the cities that banned handguns against crime data in the cities that didn’t. In some cases, the numbers, properly calculated, showed that the ban had worked to cut crime. In others, the numbers showed it had failed.

Presented with this problem a funny thing happened: how good subjects were at math stopped predicting how well they did on the test. Now it was ideology that drove the answers. Liberals were extremely good at solving the problem when doing so proved that gun-control legislation reduced crime. But when presented with the version of the problem that suggested gun control had failed, their math skills stopped mattering. They tended to get the problem wrong no matter how good they were at math. Conservatives exhibited the same pattern — just in reverse.

Being better at math didn’t just fail to help partisans converge on the right answer. It actually drove them further apart....

In another study, he tested people’s scientific literacy alongside their ideology and then asked about the risks posed by climate change. If the problem was truly that people needed to know more about science to fully appreciate the dangers of a warming climate, then their concern should’ve risen alongside their knowledge. But here, too, the opposite was true: among people who were already skeptical of climate change, scientific literacy made them more skeptical of climate change.

"Individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values."

This will make sense to anyone who’s ever read the work of a serious climate change denialist. It’s filled with facts and figures, graphs and charts, studies and citations. Much of the data is wrong or irrelevant. But it feels convincing. It’s a terrific performance of scientific inquiry. And climate-change skeptics who immerse themselves in it end up far more confident that global warming is a hoax than people who haven’t spent much time studying the issue. More information, in this context, doesn’t help skeptics discover the best evidence. Instead, it sends them searching for evidence that seems to prove them right. And in the age of the internet, such evidence is never very far away.

There is no way to convince most of the deniers.  They are going to fight you to the end.  Think what this means in regards to the proposed solutions which require global action and cooperation.  It. Just. Ain't. Going. To. Happen.  Better think of alternate solutions.

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid

[JimD]

A link brought over from the blog.

It goes a long way to explain a good bit about why consensus will not come and why deniers will go down with the ship before they change their minds.

All of which is a long way of saying that the global warming deniers have won. And please, can I have no emails from bed-wetting kidults blubbing that you can't call us "global warming deniers " because "denier" makes us sound like "Holocaust deniers", and that means you are comparing us to Nazis? The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do.

Tempting though it is to blame cowardly politicians, the abuse comes too easily. The question remains: what turned them into cowards? Rightwing billionaires in the United States and the oil companies have spent fortunes on blocking action on climate change. A part of the answer may therefore be that conservative politicians in London, Washington and Canberra are doing their richest supporters' bidding. There's truth in the bribery hypothesis. In my own little world of journalism, I have seen rightwing hacks realise the financial potential of denial and turn from reasonable men and women into beetle-browed conspiracy theorists.

But the right is also going along with an eruption of know-nothing populism. Just as there are leftish greens, who will never accept that GM foods are safe, so an ever-growing element on the right becomes more militant as the temperature rises.

Climate change deniers are (just) as committed. Their denial fits perfectly with their support for free market economics, opposition to state intervention and hatred of all those latte-slurping, quinoa-munching liberals, with their arrogant manners and dainty hybrid cars, who presume to tell honest men and women how to live. If they admitted they were wrong on climate change, they might have to admit that they were wrong on everything else and their whole political identity would unravel.

People just don't give that up.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change-deniers-have-won-global-warming

[Laurent]

9gag.com/gag/a1AqgRR/
I like it...

[Shared Humanity]

9gag.com/gag/a1AqgRR/
I like it...

So do I.

I also like this.

[Laurent]

Already posted somewhere, but it is a nice one. So good to see it again.

[Sigmetnow]

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists suggests you can engage more deniers with humor than with facts.

http://thebulletin.org/climate-change-and-koch-brothers-walk-bar7061

[Sigmetnow]

Here's someone who acted... but was widely ridiculed for it.

Eric Holthaus is a meteorologist and environmental journalist who swore off flying out of regard for his carbon footprint.  The realization drove him to tears, and he said as much, last fall.

From a recent interview:

“To be completely efficient, you’d stay home,” he says.  “And when there was all that coverage about my tweets, there were quite a few people who suggested that if I was really worried about carbon emissions, I’d just kill myself. And yes, if I did that, my carbon contribution would be zero. But the goal is to live as normal a life as possible while minimizing your carbon footprint, not suicide or never leaving your house. I have to work like everyone else, and I had work to do in California. And like everyone else, my wife and I want to enjoy life and visit friends. But we want to do it in the most responsible way possible.”

http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2014-04-24/new-life-meteorologist-who-grounded-himself-because-global

It's doubly hard to do the right thing when it gets such a negative reaction.  At the time, I commented, "Everyone has 'Oh, sh*t' moments when they accept AGW.  It's personal, and I think it helps to share."

[wili]

Thanks for that, Sig. I had my "Oh Shit" moment while in Paris in the summer of '03. That was when 30 some thousand French and 70 some thousand Europeans in total died from the mega-heatwave, which was determined to  be essentially impossible without the added heat from global warming.

I also stopped flying shortly thereafter, and have not flown since, and for five years or so have given up other long-distance travel. I love to travel, but it's something I can give up that doesn't do me physical harm. Seems a small sacrifice in the big scheme of things. That, and mostly giving up meat and dairy, are the main factors for why I am able to live within 'one earth' while most of my fellow Americans live on five or six. ( www.myfootprint.org )

We do, by the way, all only live on one earth. Most, in the US at least, just don't act that way.

ETA: My decision did not come without fairly severe consequences to me, both professionally and as far as relationships with certain friends and family members.

[Anne]

We do, by the way, all only live on one earth. Most, in the US at least, just don't act that way.

ETA: My decision did not come without fairly severe consequences to me, both professionally and as far as relationships with certain friends and family members.

That's impressive, wili.

I'm sure this must have been posted before but it is relevant here. Calculate how many earths you need to live your lifestyle:
http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/

[ccgwebmaster]

I'm sure this must have been posted before but it is relevant here. Calculate how many earths you need to live your lifestyle:
http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/

Like so many of these, it fails miserably if you don't live in a house...

I find it a little irritating when these things penalise you for not having double glazing or using minimal water for your lawn when you don't have the scope to do either (it the default assumption is that you have a household level of impact) or asking where you set your thermostat (I haven't got one), etc.

[wili]

Obviously they have to simplify and make some assumptions if they aren't going to have a quiz that lasts ten hours and is more complicated to take than filing US Federal Taxes, lol.

It's not that hard to make adjustments for your special circumstances. Of course, it is going to be a very approximate estimate, even if the quiz itself were made much more complex and detailed.

But do write to the website if you have specific suggestions. They are always trying to improve it.

One obvious short-coming is not including how many children you have. But that would complicate matters since most teens aren't going to have any just because they haven't had the time or opportunity yet. And then should you count how late in life you had them? And whether you raised them vegetarian, etc.?

Another factor that should ultimately be figured in is how active you are in addressing the broader issue through education people, political activism, neighborhood organizing, etc. (We should also get a 'neven's-blog/forum-participant credit! ) But again, this would be a very difficult thing to factor in accurately and consistently.

I would say, take the quiz, fudge a bit on the aspects that don't apply, then give yourself some bonus points (or demerits) for factors not included in this necessarily limited test. But don't just assume that, since it can't be accurate, your actual footprint must be much better than what it shows. In general they are quite generous, and most people's actual footprints are likely much higher than what is shown.

(I'm also happy they don't count the amount of beer you drink against you. But then again, if I ever were to cut back a bit, I'd like to get some kind of credit for it! '-))

ETA: SkS just put out a timely post on carbon foot prints:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Carbon-CO2-Footprint-Emissions-Calculator.html

What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?

In the CO2 calculator they link to: http://ziemianarozdrozu.pl/apps/online/en/kalkulator.html#
I do much better than my average American neighbor--9 vs 21 tons CO2/year--but that still comes to 9 carbon earths worth. Interesting that there is such a difference between the two. I'll have to check again, though. I think I over-estimated some things as I was converting to metric.

[Sigmetnow]

Excellent blog post on remaining comfortable by not knowing.

I don’t want [to] know. I don’t want to [know] about hunger and poverty, about  war and terrorism, about global warming. I don’t want to know that this is caused by human activity and even less what are its consequences: food shortage, epidemics, natural disasters such as draughts, floods, and hurricanes, and rising of the sea level. They even say that in the end my beloved Amsterdam is in danger. I don’t want to know. In Holland they say: one cannot be harmed by what one doesn’t know. So, that global warming, that is not happening at all.

http://www.erikvanpraag.nl/?p=873

[Sigmetnow]

Excellent example of denial via "seeing but not believing":  It's clear early on that something is wrong during the launch of this beautiful new yacht -- everyone can see it, but no one yells "Stop!"

[Laurent]

I guess the people were thinking the guy in charge of the drop must know what he is doing...just like most people think they can trust our main medias and government...until it is too late...the arctic will melt...damned
I am not a specialist but it seems to me that there is not much stuff below the surface and a lot above, quite a disbalance there...like the energy on the planet...

[Sigmetnow]

...
I am not a specialist but it seems to me that there is not much stuff below the surface and a lot above, quite a disbalance there...like the energy on the planet...

That was my thought, as well.  Apparently the ship company has been building boats that way for years, using some sort of magical ballast to keep the boat upright.  But when the magic runs out...: The End.

[TerryM]

Ship builders apparently haven't learned much since the glorious launch of the Vasa
Terry

[folke_kelm]

Monty Pythons version of denial.



This does not explain any denialism, but it shows perfectly how it works in reality.

[Anne]

There are a couple of stories I've seen recently that go to show how entrenched denialism is:

House Votes To Deny Climate Science And Ties Pentagon’s Hands On Climate Change

Sea level rise impacting naval bases. Climate change altering natural disaster response. Drought influenced by climate change in the Middle East and Africa leading to conflicts over food and water — as in, for instance, Syria.
The military understands the realities of climate change and the negative impacts of heavy dependence on fossil fuels.
The U.S. House does not.
With a mostly party-line vote on Thursday, the House of Representatives passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) that seeks to prevent the Department of Defense from using funding to address the national security impacts of climate change.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/22/3440827/mckinley-climate-pentagon-climate-change/

And this:

Alabama's Climate Change Deniers Refuse to Save the State

Even as the federal government’s new National Climate Assessment cautions that storm surges may one day leave coastal communities such as Mobile under as much as 25 feet of water, state leaders persist in saying global warming is a sham and resist spending money to prepare for it. Trip Pittman, a Republican state senator who represents Baldwin County on the east side of Mobile Bay, calls federal research on climate change “bad science” and “fear-mongering.” Spending millions based on such predictions doesn’t make sense, he says. “What are the costs of us going on these crusades, these environmental crusades?” says Pittman. “We’ve elevated environmentalism into some kind of religion.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-22/alabamas-climate-change-deniers-refuse-to-save-the-state#r=rss

[Laurent]

John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/23/john-oliver-best-climate-debate-ever

[jai mitchell]

Sociologists have studied this very closely and have found the following:

Humans that use their intellect to explore NEW information, the results of which CONFLICT their perceived identity group's (i.e. republican or democrat, liberal, labor. . .) general consensus are so RARE that they, statistically, DO NOT EXIST.


http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/climate_science_as_culture_war

Climate Science as Culture War

with limited cognitive ability to fully investigate every issue we face. People everywhere employ ideological filters that reflect their identity, worldview, and belief systems. These filters are strongly influenced by group values, and we generally endorse the position that most directly reinforces the connection we have with others in our referent group—what Yale Law School professor Dan Kahan refers to as “cultural cognition.”

Over time, these ideological filters become increasingly stable and resistant to change through multiple reinforcing mechanisms. First, we’ll consider evidence when it is accepted or, ideally, presented by a knowledgeable source from our cultural community; and we’ll dismiss information that is advocated by sources that represent groups whose values we reject. Second, we will selectively choose information sources that support our ideological position.

[wili]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-karpinski/climate-change-deniers-ar_b_5379677.html?utm_hp_ref=green

Climate Change Deniers Are Ignoring the Facts and Doubling Down on Their Extreme Beliefs

Climate change deniers like Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who think they know better than the scientific experts, are spouting off talking points that put the interests of Big Oil and corporate polluters ahead of their constituents. Rubio's home state is at risk to sea level rise, extreme heat, more devastating hurricanes and a shortage of drinking water, according to the National Climate Assessment. Yet, even with all these facts, Rubio still went on ABC's "This Week," to declare, "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying." After his comments, he tried to defend his previous statement by saying "I think all science deserves skepticism...I've never denied that there is climate change. The question is: Is man-made activity causing the changes in the climate?"

[Laurent]

Why children can't see what's right in front of them
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27538195

May be there is something like that also for AGW and the adults...

[ccgwebmaster]

Why children can't see what's right in front of them
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27538195

May be there is something like that also for AGW and the adults...

Except for the fact most people feel too busy putting their attention onto the demands of every day life, I'm not sure that's valid as this seems to be to do with brain development - ie the majority of adults are far better at perceiving their surroundings than adults.

Not like we really need more explanations for why people ignore climate change/civilisational collapse - there are already plenty...

[wili]

http://www.humanitystest.com/endless-layers-of-delusion/

Many here may find common ground and perhaps insights from various parts of this longish essay:

Endless Layers of Delusion
By Roger Boyd

...2 Degrees is Safe, and 450 ppm of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Will Get Us There

The assumption that a 2 degree centigrade increase in the average global temperature will not trigger positive feedbacks that will create significant further warming, nor endanger human civilization, has become a political anchor which is seemingly impervious to rational challenge. Unfortunately “there is little explicit scientific evidence for why 2 degrees centigrade should be the preferred target”[23]. The current impacts of only a 0.8 degree warming point to the IPCC target being too high, “If we’re seeing what we’re seeing at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much”, states Thomas Lovejoy[24]. More and more recent scientific findings, including paleoclimate studies, also show a greater level of responsiveness of the earth’s climate to increases in greenhouse gases than assumed by the I.P.C.C. models[25] [26] [27]. In a deft sleight of hand, the acceptable level of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions of 1000 gigatonnes (reduced to 790 gigatonnes taking into account other climate forcings) that the I.P.C.C. has emphasized as a target is the one that only provides about a 2 out 3 chance of not breaching the 2 degree limit[28]. This is akin to a game of Russian Roulette with a revolver that can hold three bullets and has one bullet loaded. Would you want to play when the possibility of more empty chambers is available to you? Gaining that extra safety margin comes with a cost, of course; in the case of climate change, that cost is a much lower limit of allowable greenhouse gas emissions.

A major area of omission from the I.P.C.C. report is the probability of an exponential relationship between temperature and the release of carbon dioxide and methane from natural processes, such as permafrost decay, methane hydrate destabilization and the action of organisms within wetlands[29] [30] [31] [32]. The logical acrobatics performed by the I.P.C.C. to support its official findings are exposed when the following conclusion is buried within the scientific findings of its own report, “It is virtually certain that near-surface permafrost extent at high northern latitudes will be reduced as global mean surface temperature increases. By the end of the 21st century, the area of permafrost near the surface (upper 3.5 m) is projected to decrease by between 37% (RCP2.6) to 81% (RCP8.5) for the model average”[33]. The I.P.C.C. accepts that at least the top 10 feet of permafrost will be affected by significant melting and decomposition, but does not include the resulting carbon dioxide and methane emissions in its official calculations of climate sensitivity.  This is a very significant omission as researchers who have included this carbon feedback from melting permafrost, not including any acceleration in carbon emissions from wetlands and methane hydrates, have concluded that it will add up to 0.75 degrees centigrade to global warming by the end of the twenty-first century[34]. Even this estimate could be quite conservative as another recent study found that as the permafrost melts and the organic matter within it decomposes, the chemical reactions that are triggered produce more climate changing gases than previously assumed, and create greater amounts of methane (which has a 20 year climate change effect 86 times that of carbon dioxide) relative to carbon dioxide[35]...

[Laurent]

Simon Reeve: the media has to show the reality of climate change
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10874825/Simon-Reeve-the-media-has-to-show-the-reality-of-climate-change.html

[Laurent]

Communication...bla bla bla
Why is climate communication so hard?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jun/10/global-warming-climate-change-asymmetric-insight

If you like this kind of reading (thought not about denial):
Why the cultural response to global warming makes for a heated debate
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/why-the-cultural-response-to-global-warming-makes-for-a-heated-debate-9524081.html

[Laurent]

The Fox-ification of global warming and the war on coal
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/18/foxification-global-warming-war-on-coal

[Laurent]

Bjorn Lomborg and the mysterious millions
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2454031/bjorn_lomborg_and_the_mysterious_millions.html

[Laurent]

For the us people, it may be interesting to know who is who...
The House Science Committee Is In A State Of Climate Change Denial
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/house-science-committee-c_n_5533992.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

[Anne]

The BBC's Radio 4 programme Today has been rebuked for giving undue prominence to climate change sceptic Lord Lawson. I heard the programme where he was spouting his nonsense in a "debate" with Sir Brian Hoskins of the Grantham Institute, and was appalled at the false equivalence.

During the programme Lord Lawson, the founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), repeatedly argued that “nobody knows” about the extent of climate change and that 2013 was “unusually quiet” for tropical storms. The debate provoked a flurry of complaints to the BBC, including one from Chit Chong, a low-energy expert based in Dorset, which has been upheld by the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit.

The finding follows a ruling earlier this week from the BBC Trust, which partly upheld a complaint against Radio 4’s The World at One for the platform it gave to the Australian climate change sceptic Bob Carter in September.

the former editor of Today Ceri Thomas defended the programme’s decision to give air time to Lord Lawson and said he had been the first climate change sceptic to speak on the programme in six weeks of floods. He said that the former Chancellor was “well-qualified to comment on the economic arguments, which are a legitimate area for debate”.

But he admitted: “We do accept that we could have offered a clearer description of the sceptical position taken by Lord Lawson and the GWPF in the introduction. That would have clarified in the audience’s minds the ideological background to the arguments.”

Link to today's report in The Independent.

[Laurent]

When Beliefs and Facts Collide
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Laurent]

Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/14/rupert-murdoch-doesnt-understand-climate-basics

[Laurent]

The 'Today' Show: A Sign of the Apocalypse
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-stephenson/the-today-show-a-sign-of-_b_5591327.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

[Laurent]

'Coal Rollers' Revel in Clouds of Black Smoke
http://www.newsweek.com/coal-roller-257884
   
“Rollin’ Coal” Is Pollution Porn for Dudes With Pickup Trucks
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/dicks-pick-trucks-meme-rollin-coal/

[Buddy]

So RJ Reynolds was sued for lying about the health effects of smoking.  The person who sued WON a judgement for $23 BILLION (yes....B as in BILLION) dollars.

I wonder how much the judgments against Sean Hannity, FOX News, Joe Bastardi.....and others are going to be starting in about 10 years?

[Nick_Naylor]

So RJ Reynolds was sued for lying about the health effects of smoking.  The person who sued WON a judgement for $23 BILLION (yes....B as in BILLION) dollars.

I wonder how much the judgments against Sean Hannity, FOX News, Joe Bastardi.....and others are going to be starting in about 10 years?

Beats me, but Charles and David Koch should be the big losers - they have spent hundreds of millions creating fraudulent content for Fox & friends to peddle. Unfortunately, they have been more careful than big tobacco to protect themselves & conceal the fact that they are intentionally misleading the public, so it will be harder to hold them to account.

[Laurent]

#DirtyDenier$ Day 8: Shelley Moore Capito
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-taylormiesle/dirtydenier-day-8-shelley_b_5665825.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

[Laurent]

#DirtyDenier$ Day 9: Congressman Jon Kline
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-taylormiesle/dirtydenier-day-9-congres_b_5665838.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
Us people have to know about these good looking guys...

[Laurent]

New study finds fringe global warming contrarians get disproportionate media attention
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/11/fringe-global-warming-contrarians-disproportionate-media

[Laurent]

Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/18/global-warming-denial-rears-head-in-english

[Laurent]

DirtyDenier$ Day 14: Pat Toomey
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-taylormiesle/dirtydenier-day-14-pat-to_b_5688938.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

[Laurent]

Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/27/climate-sceptics-see-a-conspiracy-in-australias-record-breaking-heat

[jbg]

Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/18/global-warming-denial-rears-head-in-english

Maybe the politicians are reluctant to cost real people real jobs, today, to head off a hypothetical problem that may or may not exist.

[Bob Wallace]

We've already warmed the planet.  There's no doubt about that except in the minds of those who either don't know the facts or deny the facts.

Renewable energy is creating more jobs than are being lost in the fossil fuel industry. 

[Tor Bejnar]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/23/why-our-brains-wired-ignore-climate-change-united-nations

Climate change is ‘a perfect crime everyone contributes to but for which no one has a motive’.

As world leaders meet today at the United Nations in New York, they will face intense pressure to act. The discovery that North Korea has been secretly pumping climate-altering chemicals into the atmosphere in an attempt to destroy agricultural production across the US has sparked an international crisis.

That’s not true, of course. There is indeed a summit today, called by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, to discuss dangerous climatic disruption. It’s a disruption that may in fact lead to the collapse of many of the world’s main agricultural regions. But since it’s only dull old global warming, a subject swaths of the public seem to find less interesting than watching paint dry, the politicians don’t have to worry too much about being held to account.
...

More by this activist at http://climatedenial.org

George Marshall is also featured in the film "Disruption" http://watchdisruption.com/

Related discussion at https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,912.0.html

[Laurent]

Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/oct/02/global-warming-battle-for-evangelical-hearts-and-minds